EarWig
msg:86546 | 1:49 pm on Jun 4, 2003 (gmt 0) |
ncsuk Great stuff - helps me understand a lot more now than I did before your posting. We all learn a little more each day.:-) EW
|
IanTurner
msg:86547 | 1:58 pm on Jun 4, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Nice post ncsuk. Unfortunately having PR is just like having a well dressed Spiv as a salesman. It gets results, if you're getting sales and generating income that is the main thing. If the snake oil you are selling is no good then, with your income you can spend on R&D to improve the product. (No sales = no income = no product improvement) We have all seen the amazing improvements that can be made when a product takes off - the early versions of Dreamweaver could hardly have been described as quality products, innovative maybe but nowadays the Dreamweaver product is much more reliable and behaves as you would expect it to. I don't think that would have happened without the sales volume. It has always been the case that good marketing can make or break a company. That is as true on the web as it ever was in the bricks and mortar world, maybe even more so.
|
ncsuk
msg:86548 | 3:13 pm on Jun 4, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Hope you found it informative... (Was going to say useful then but that would of been wrong) I think we all need to take a step back and ask ourselves if pagerank means anything to us.
|
Netizen
msg:86549 | 3:21 pm on Jun 4, 2003 (gmt 0) |
As far as I understand it, that is not how PageRank is calculated. It is not an estimate - it is a definite value based on a mathmatical algorithm. PageRank essentially tries to put a value on the popularity of a page based on how many pages link to it, and the popularity of those pages themselves. This is a complex, iterative process, hence the long time between Google updates. There are any number of forum threads, web pages, real world scientific papers, etc, on this subject. The way it is calculated is probably undergoing a major change (considering a number of recent posts) so we should all keep our heads down :-)
|
ncsuk
msg:86550 | 3:27 pm on Jun 4, 2003 (gmt 0) |
It is an estimate because Googles data is never up to date. Also remember that something calculated by the number of click throughs and links cannot be separated into good and bad by a algorithum because it has no way of telling what the site is link unless the anchor text says. "C*** service" And the like. It is a preciese estimate I understand what you are saying but still it is an estimate.
|
Netizen
msg:86551 | 3:44 pm on Jun 4, 2003 (gmt 0) |
True, Google only samples the current state of the web, so in that sense it is an estimate. The PageRank calculation doesn't include click throughs, just links, and yes, as is currently being discussed in another thread, links can be for good or bad reasons, although I wouldn't link to a site that I thought was poor.
|
ncsuk
msg:86552 | 3:49 pm on Jun 4, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Thats a different topic of conversation however which is in the other thread. Topic of this one I suppose should read. "Why do people rely on the PR section of the Google toolbar so much?"
|
Netizen
msg:86553 | 4:12 pm on Jun 4, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Or..."why do webmasters rely on the PR in the Google toolbar so much" Answer: because we like to feel loved.
|
ncsuk
msg:86554 | 4:13 pm on Jun 4, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Someone hold him down ill call the men in white jackets.
|
BigDave
msg:86555 | 4:25 pm on Jun 4, 2003 (gmt 0) |
| The PR value is basically an "estimate" of the value and weight of the pages held within a website. This is worked out by Google using a set of "complex algorithums" which are derived from a sites keyword density, links, strcuture and much much more. |
|
Nope, this is wrong. PR is a simple iterative algorithm that is calculated ONLY using the links coming in to your page from other pages, and their PR values. It has nothing to do with keyword density, structure or anything else. Links from other pages on the same site count the same as links from other sites. Otherwise, I agree with much of your post, you should be concentrating more on the numbers that count, not on the little green bar.
|
ncsuk
msg:86556 | 4:26 pm on Jun 4, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Humm why exactly do I have a site then with a PR 6 and no backlinks.
|
cjtripnewton
msg:86557 | 4:37 pm on Jun 4, 2003 (gmt 0) |
You don't. <added - not to be snippy> You have a site. That we can agree on without your providing any evidence, for the sake of discussion. You also have a Google toolbar which is telling you that your site has a PR of 6. The toolbar is acting really erratically right now. Yesterday, Macromedia had no PageRank on my toolbar for a few hours. It's anyone's guess what your site's PageRank is. It's also anyone's guess whether your site really does have backlinks or not. If the site is brand new, then it's possible that the green bar you're seeing is an estimate, or even that it's stuck from the last site you visited. If the site has been around for some time, then it's probable that there are back links that you can't find. Try searching for them on other search engines. At any rate, don't rely on the data you're getting from the toolbar right now. THe site in your profile is showing a PR of 4 on my toolbar right now, and the backlinks function in the toolbar finds 3 sites linking to yours. [edited by: cjtripnewton at 4:44 pm (utc) on June 4, 2003]
|
Marc_P
msg:86558 | 4:41 pm on Jun 4, 2003 (gmt 0) |
| PR is a simple iterative algorithm that is calculated ONLY using the links coming in to your page from other pages, and their PR values. It has nothing to do with keyword density, structure or anything else. Links from other pages on the same site count the same as links from other sites. |
|
I agree. It is my understanding of PR that it calculated solely from the PR of pages that link to a file as well as the quantity of those links (how many and how good they are). Also, I think the Google Toolbar will only show backward links for sites that have PR4 or more (or something like that). It is entirely possible to get tons of links from PR3 sites pointing to one page to give it a PR of 6 - although I suppose you would need quite a few such links!
|
IanTurner
msg:86559 | 2:12 am on Jun 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Or for the more practical PR is increased by good quality (high PR) inbound links. The higher your PR the better your performance in SERPs (I don't think the WHY comes into it or the complextiies of the algorithm). Okay thats not quite true - but its pretty effective.
|
John_Creed
msg:86560 | 3:08 am on Jun 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Generally those who try to devalue the importance of PR either have a very high PR, or a very low one. If your site has a higher PR than your compitition, than you have an advantage over them. PR is not simply a "tie breaker" as some like to claim. The reason people obsess over PR is because it's on the toolbar. If Google ever gave us access to monitoring any other important aspect of their algo, we'd be obsessing over that too. I agree. People should worry more about sales and how well they're doing in the serps and less about PR. But I get the feeling that people obsessing over their PR are already *not* doing as well as they'd like.
|
Kirby
msg:86561 | 3:39 am on Jun 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
| Humm why exactly do I have a site then with a PR 6 and no backlinks. |
|
It is possible thru proper architecture to create a PR6 with few if any incoming links.
|
ncsuk
msg:86562 | 9:54 am on Jun 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Of course it is, a PR value is basically the relevance of a website if you have relative text and no inbound links Google is still going to know where the site is coming from and will give it a PR accordingly. Whoever mention the site in my profile, that is the site with a PR6. I can appreciate the importance as you have mentioned in relation to backlinks coming in. The site in my profile last month for example was PR5 with 130 backlinks, now its PR4 with 3 backlinks. Sure I will agree that backlinks form an integral part of the PR algo however to say that links are the only thingt that form a PR is absolute nonsence. I think people really need to open their eyes sometimes and research on things without believing what everyone else says. I think I mention sheep so again I will reiterate it. | dont follow the crowd they are not always right |
|
|
Netizen
msg:86563 | 12:07 pm on Jun 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Ummm, not as I understand it. If your page has no inbound links it will have no PR as Google won't find it. The Google toolbar will estimate a PR for an unknown page based on the PR of the root web site. Are you absolutely sure there are no links to the page in question? Even if Google doesn't show backlinks there are probably some - backlinks are rumoured to be only coming from PR 4 pages and above.
|
steve128
msg:86564 | 12:18 pm on Jun 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
>>Of course it is, a PR value is basically the relevance of a website if you have relative text and no inbound links Google is still going to know where the site is coming from and will give it a PR accordingly<< Then how does google find the site in the first place, does googlebot get lost stumbles around a bit, land on the page by magic.
"hey this is a good page, I think I'll give it 6"?..or maybe 7
|
europeforvisitors
msg:86565 | 12:22 pm on Jun 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
| Sure I will agree that backlinks form an integral part of the PR algo however to say that links are the only thingt that form a PR is absolute nonsence. |
|
Google indexes pages, not sites. For any given page, an "inbound link" or "backlink" can be a link from one of your own pages, not just a link from another site.
|
steve128
msg:86566 | 12:24 pm on Jun 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
The site in profile shows 1300 links? One good way to prove your "niche ideas" would be to create another site, with absolutely no links in whatsoever... we can then wait and see. -;
|
heini
msg:86567 | 12:25 pm on Jun 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
>It is possible thru proper architecture to create a PR6 with few if any incoming links No. It is not possible. PR has nothing to do with relevance, with content, architecture or anything.
It's simply the value of the links pointing to your site. Nothing else. Most of this thread completely confuses real PR with what the toolbar shows, and with what Google shows as backlinks. The toolbar PR is a very rough represenation of real PR, and often it's totally off sync with real PR.
|
ncsuk
msg:86568 | 12:53 pm on Jun 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
I have 2 sites with no links to them and I will not add any and we shall see what they are like in 3 months then :)
|
doc_z
msg:86569 | 1:14 pm on Jun 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
| It is possible thru proper architecture to create a PR6 with few if any incoming links. |
|
No. It is not possible. PR has nothing to do with relevance, with content, architecture or anything.
It's simply the value of the links pointing to your site. Nothing else. |
|
Indeed, PR nothing to do with relevance or with content, but is has to do with the link structure and number of pages on your site. Theoretically, (asuming that the original PR calculation with a damping factor of 0 < d < 1 is still valid) you can create a PR6 page with few incoming (low PR) links (by adding a very large number of internal pages). However, in practice it won't work.
|
cjtripnewton
msg:86570 | 1:54 pm on Jun 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
>>I have 2 sites with no links to them and I will not add any and we shall see what they are like in 3 months then :) ncsuk, if you're using the Google toolbar information to conclude that your two sites don't have any links pointing to them, then you're not understanding how the toolbar works. Before you perform your experiment, search for links to your two sites on AltaVista, AllTheWeb, and Inktomi. If you are unable to find any links pointing to either of your two sites, then there is a good chance that there are none. Still, there's a chance that you just can't find them. Read one of the Stanford papers and you'll conclude that PR is determined by links, as have everyone here who has read them. PS, if your 2 sites are showing up in the search results, you're probably too late to perform the experiment. There most likely are links out there somewhere. Still, we have had sites indexed by Google that had never been submitted anywhere and were under construction and only visited by ourselves, the developers - implicating the toolbar.
|
BigDave
msg:86571 | 4:30 pm on Jun 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
| I think people really need to open their eyes sometimes and research on things without believing what everyone else says. |
|
Oh my, this sure does sound like a good idea. In fact it is one that I often suggest to peopole who obvioulsy haven't researched it and insist that content or site structure can "create" high PR. (site structure can help direct the PR that you have, but it does not create it) You can start with this one
[hci.stanford.edu...] Google does care about the content, but the only way that content influences PageRank is by making it easier to get incoming links.
|
doc_z
msg:86572 | 8:59 pm on Jun 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
According to the original papers, every page 'create' a real PR of 1. (For simplicity I'm leaving out the case d=1 and neglecting dead ends.) Therefore, creating pages will produce PR. This 'self produced' PR can be distributed over the site (and other pages/sites if there are outgoing links). Depending on the link structure, PR can be distrubuted either equally or in a way that a few pages are mainly benefitting. In the first case you won't increase the PR for a page on your site. If you chose a link structure of the latter case, you can create a few high PR page by adding a very large number of pages. Since the ToolbarPR scale is logarithmic, you have to increase the number of pages in an exponential way to increase the ToolbarPR linearly. Obviously, this isn't very feasible. However, in pratice even this doesn't seem to work. The other practical problem is that Google probably won't spider the whole site as long as it has only low PR.
|
WebGuerrilla
msg:86573 | 9:33 pm on Jun 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
it is possible thru proper architecture to create a PR6 with few if any incoming links. Point #1. There is a huge difference between a few links and none. Point #2. The original PR formula was from 1998. It is now 2003. So even if the original version allowed PR to be generated soley from internal links, that doesn't mean it still works that way. Point #3. Over the past year or so, I've heard several Google employees talk about reducing the significance of internal linking. I'll bet anyone here a beer at the next PubCon that when the "new and improved" version of Google is released, internal links will become almost a non-factor.
|
ncsuk
msg:86574 | 9:43 pm on Jun 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Trust me there are no links to them I bought the domains last week.
|
| This 55 message thread spans 2 pages: 55 ( [1] 2 ) > > |
|
|
